Scientist confesses he made up polar bear population estimates
Thomas Lifson
May 31, 2014

The greatest scientific fraud in history is slowly but surely unraveling, and the breadth of the corruption revealed is stunning. As any good con man knows, and emotional appeal is necessary, and the warmists found their cuddly-looking icon of endangerment in the polar bear, an animal frequently chosen as stuffed toys for children to hug. Pictures of polar bears on ice floes, presumably doomed to death by drowning as the Arctic ice disappeared, were used to tug on the heartstrings of adults and children alike, in order to scare them into willingly handing over power over their economic destiny to global mandarins who would reduce their standard of living.

But it was necessary to come up with “scientific” estimates of polar bear populations that showed them in danger. With all the billions of dollars available for global warming-related research, and the level of peer pressure that money generates, it wasn’t that difficult.

Polar bear populations became the centerpiece of the effort to fight global warming due to claims that melting polar ice caps would cause the bears to become endangered in the near future. Years ago some scientists predicted the Arctic would be virtually ice free by now.

Polar bears became the first species listed under the Endangered Species Act because they could potentially be harmed by global warming. But some recent studies have found that some polar bear subpopulations have actually flourished in recent years.

As with the hockey stick graph and many other elements of the concocted story, honest scientists working in the finest tradition of skeptical scientific inquiry, started to unravel fuzzy numbers and lies. One such hero is polar bear scientist Dr. Susan Crockford, who publishes the website Polar Bear Science. In it she documents how a scientist responsible for an alarmist lowball estimate of polar bear population is backing away from numbers that she has been questioning:

Quote:

Last week (May 22), I received an unsolicited email from Dr. Dag Vongraven, the current chairman of the IUCN [International Union for the Conservation of Nature – TL] Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG).

The email from Vongraven began this way:

“Dr. Crockford

Below you’ll find a footnote that will accompany a total polar bear population size range in the circumpolar polar bear action plan that we are currently drafting together with the Parties to the 1973 Agreement. This might keep you blogging for a day or two.”

It appears the PBSG have come to the realization that public outrage (or just confusion) is brewing over their global population estimates and some damage control is perhaps called for. Their solution — bury a statement of clarification within their next official missive (which I have commented upon here).

Instead of issuing a press release to clarify matters to the public immediately, Vongraven decided he would let me take care of informing the public that this global estimate may not be what it seems.

Wow! Burying the news in a footnote and letting a critic know instead of issuing a press release. That is certainly a signal. Here’s the news:

Here is the statement that the PBSG proposes to insert as a footnote in their forthcoming Circumpolar Polar Bear Action Plan draft:

Quote:

“As part of past status reports, the PBSG has traditionally estimated a range for the total number of polar bears in the circumpolar Arctic. Since 2005, this range has been 20-25,000. It is important to realize that this range never has been an estimate of total abundance in a scientific sense, but simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand. It is also important to note that even though we have scientifically valid estimates for a majority of the subpopulations, some are dated. Furthermore, there are no abundance estimates for the Arctic Basin, East Greenland, and the Russian subpopulations.Consequently, there is either no, or only rudimentary, knowledge to support guesses about the possible abundance of polar bears in approximately half the areas they occupy. Thus, the range given for total global population should be viewed with great caution as it cannot be used to assess population trend over the long term.”

“A guess to satisfy public demand” but wrapped in the prestige of settled science.

I don't know if humans cause global warming or not, but I know that money is one hell of a persuader in any field.

I do know that we should take common-sense steps towards being as clean as possible.

I plan on molding my steps like Gores. Use obscene amounts of energy while saying people shouldn't~

__________________“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion"
Steven Weinberg~

We have the ability to do the right thing without getting scammed through things such as "carbon credits", but the massive scare-tactic ****sticks out there such as Al Gore are hurting the process a lot more then they are helping.

Yes, I know it's a rigged system to promote the profitability of science. Any scientists can be as big a whore as a New York street walker. Having the likes of Al Gore (Mr. Huge Carbon Footprint himself!!!) teamed-up with you, and getting rich in all the hype they're creating, is all the smoke people with common sense need in order to to know there's fire.

C'mon, you know it's fake....

First, Climate change advocacy is not very profitable. This is one myth that seems to constantly get pushed, but there's just no basis in reality.

Second, Al Gore is not a climate scientist. He's a politician. And a bad one at that. He's not "Teamed up" with shit, except his own political agenda. Anybody claiming Gore is the face of climate change is just flat wrong.

Third, Gore hasn't even kept the money he made from his political scare tactics. Al Gore donates all of the proceeds from both the book and DVD of An Inconvenient Truth to environmental causes. He also donated 100 percent of his Nobel Peace Prize award as well as the salary from his venture capital firm, Kleiner Perkins Caulfield & Byers, to the Alliance for Climate Protection.

Click the links if you don't believe it.

The reality is actually that much more money goes into climate change denial. Funded by energy corporations.

First, Climate change advocacy is not very profitable. This is one myth that seems to constantly get pushed, but there's just no basis in reality.

Second, Al Gore is not a climate scientist. He's a politician. And a bad one at that. He's not "Teamed up" with shit, except his own political agenda. Anybody claiming Gore is the face of climate change is just flat wrong.

Third, Gore hasn't even kept the money he made from his political scare tactics. Al Gore donates all of the proceeds from both the book and DVD of An Inconvenient Truth to environmental causes. He also donated 100 percent of his Nobel Peace Prize award as well as the salary from his venture capital firm, Kleiner Perkins Caulfield & Byers, to the Alliance for Climate Protection.

Click the links if you don't believe it.

The reality is actually that much more money goes into climate change denial. Funded by energy corporations.

First, Climate change advocacy is not very profitable. This is one myth that seems to constantly get pushed, but there's just no basis in reality.

Second, Al Gore is not a climate scientist. He's a politician. And a bad one at that. He's not "Teamed up" with shit, except his own political agenda. Anybody claiming Gore is the face of climate change is just flat wrong.

Third, Gore hasn't even kept the money he made from his political scare tactics. Al Gore donates all of the proceeds from both the book and DVD of An Inconvenient Truth to environmental causes. He also donated 100 percent of his Nobel Peace Prize award as well as the salary from his venture capital firm, Kleiner Perkins Caulfield & Byers, to the Alliance for Climate Protection.

Click the links if you don't believe it.

The reality is actually that much more money goes into climate change denial. Funded by energy corporations.

When "Al Gore" is about the only "Global Warming" name we can all quote, he's the face of global warming. Add to it that his carbon footprint is orders of magnitude higher than the rest of the planet and there's smoke. As for him donating his profits, I don't doubt he says he does, byt he's a ****ing slut-whore-bitch (and an angry, butt-hurt, one at that), so I'll always assume he's lying (again).

And if it's as big a deal as the liberals are saying ("going to end the planet"), then I'd think they'd be willing to go to war with the worst offenders on "the planet" - the Chinese - so far, all papers and no bullets. Perhaps they're scared, I don't know, but if they think global warning is really as bad as they say, and we only have seconds to survive it, I'm pretty sure they risk war to fix the world's #1 offender.

I don't understand your logic. Do you think that if you admit that there is a problem that you immediately have to give up every activity that contributes to it?

If you over spend your budget do you immediately declare yourself homeless and stop eating forever? Does denying that there is a limit to your financial resources and continuing to spend money like a rock star seem like a better solution? Would you be incapable of considering some solutions between these extremes?

When "Al Gore" is about the only "Global Warming" name we can all quote, he's the face of global warming. Add to it that his carbon footprint is orders of magnitude higher than the rest of the planet and there's smoke. As for him donating his profits, I don't doubt he says he does, byt he's a ****ing slut-whore-bitch (and an angry, butt-hurt, one at that), so I'll always assume he's lying (again).

And if it's as big a deal as the liberals are saying ("going to end the planet"), then I'd think they'd be willing to go to war with the worst offenders on "the planet" - the Chinese - so far, all papers and no bullets. Perhaps they're scared, I don't know, but if they think global warning is really as bad as they say, and we only have seconds to survive it, I'm pretty sure they risk war to fix the world's #1 offender.

No offense, but if Al Gore is the only name you can quote, it simply means that you don't know anything factual about the topic. He's a hypocritical douche politician. He's been used as the evil face of political climate bullying misinformation. **** Gore.

Furthermore, neither liberals, nor actual climate scientists are saying we're going to end the planet. Not in the slightest. The human race is in absolutely no danger of extinction over climate change. Even if we did absolutely nothing, the world isn't going to burst into flames and kill everyone. That mindset is only coming from climate change denial organization or insane fear mongering politicians. Things could get nasty in many ways regarding the planet, and it could cost us lots of money to mitigate and adapt. That's the main concern.

A Rhode Island Jr. Senator made a pretty good speech to the Senate on the misinformation job that's happened regarding climate change, and it didn't get nearly enough coverage as it should have.

If you actually want to hear the other side, read through this. It's a quick read and very informative.

No offense, but if Al Gore is the only name you can quote, it simply means that you don't know anything factual about the topic. He's a hypocritical douche politician. He's been used as the evil face of political climate bullying misinformation. **** Gore.

Furthermore, neither liberals, nor actual climate scientists are saying we're going to end the planet. Not in the slightest. The human race is in absolutely no danger of extinction over climate change. Even if we did absolutely nothing, the world isn't going to burst into flames and kill everyone. That mindset is only coming from climate change denial organization or insane fear mongering politicians. Things could get nasty in many ways regarding the planet, and it could cost us lots of money to mitigate and adapt. That's the main concern.

A Rhode Island Jr. Senator made a pretty good speech to the Senate on the misinformation job that's happened regarding climate change, and it didn't get nearly enough coverage as it should have.

If you actually want to hear the other side, read through this. It's a quick read and very informative.

First, Climate change advocacy is not very profitable. This is one myth that seems to constantly get pushed, but there's just no basis in reality.

Second, Al Gore is not a climate scientist. He's a politician. And a bad one at that. He's not "Teamed up" with shit, except his own political agenda. Anybody claiming Gore is the face of climate change is just flat wrong.

Third, Gore hasn't even kept the money he made from his political scare tactics. Al Gore donates all of the proceeds from both the book and DVD of An Inconvenient Truth to environmental causes. He also donated 100 percent of his Nobel Peace Prize award as well as the salary from his venture capital firm, Kleiner Perkins Caulfield & Byers, to the Alliance for Climate Protection.

Click the links if you don't believe it.

The reality is actually that much more money goes into climate change denial. Funded by energy corporations.